Slashdot Mirror


Film Gimp Project Renamed to CinePaint

ubiquitin writes "To avoid confusion with the GIMP, the Film Gimp project has renamed itself to CinePaint. The project is essentially a legitimate fork of GIMP, and is focused on image manipulations for moving pictures." We've mentioned Film Gimp several times lately; it'll be even handier as programs like Cinelerra and Kino grow more polished.

85 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. The other choices... by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 2, Funny
    Here were the other choices they had to pick from:
    • FrIMP
    • Film-Fu
    • FIMP
    • GFMP
    • FilmStudio
    • FilmShop

    I agree, Cinepaint is the best. FrIMP ? ;-)

    --
    Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    1. Re:The other choices... by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1
      What about Motion Picture Image Manipulation Project? MPimp does have a certain ring to it. ;)

      Maybe with a silent 'M'...

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
    2. Re:The other choices... by labratuk · · Score: 1

      Nah. Film-Fu would have got my vote.

      CinePaint sonds like some piece of crappy shareware that comes bundled with your webcam.

      At least Film GIMP was vivid. Because of the jokes everyone makes when they first hear of it, at least they remember it.

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    3. Re:The other choices... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      Mind if we call it Bruce, just to avoid the confusion?

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    4. Re:The other choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Fer' Christ sake... do you have a life other than posting every six seconds on /. ?
      Did they kick you out of the teen rooms on AOL or something? fcking pedofiles...

    5. Re:The other choices... by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

      GNU/CinePaint

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
  2. CinePaint? Kind of bland ... by moonbender · · Score: 2, Insightful

    CinePaint? Not exactly a creative name. Out of the names mentioned as candidates in the press release, Film-Fu is easily the funniest. But I guess being funny isn't exactly what they wanted to achieve for "the most popular open source tool in feature motion picture work" ...

    --
    Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    1. Re:CinePaint? Kind of bland ... by DrPascal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      CinePaint is a "producer friendly" type name, and it sounds like it fits pretty well.

      --
      DrPascal: Not the language, the mathematician.
    2. Re:CinePaint? Kind of bland ... by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Beats the hell out of "Herbert."

      KFG

    3. Re:CinePaint? Kind of bland ... by BigJimSlade · · Score: 1

      My wife and I were talking about this very topic over the weekend (she is a graphic designer) Her main gripe with open source software is that the names are not very consumer friendly. The GIMP is her least favorite of the bunch. When posed with the choice of Photoshop and GIMP, which sounds more likely to help you touch up your photos?

      I'm glad to hear that FilmGIMP is called CinePaint now. It may be a little bland, but at least it gives a better impression of what the program does to the general public (and yes, I know the chances of the general public using a film frame retouching program are slim to none)

  3. topic's by slug359 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hard to believe GIMP has a topic of it's own, despite the fact this is the first story in the topic for over a year (see here), when overclocking (which I'd love to filter without removing hardware!)/individual BSD's/P2P (including the RIAA/MPAA/*AA)/and so on don't have topics!

    1. Re:topic's by cascino · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The same goes for Mac OS 9. Yes, there is a topic for OS 9. Five stories have ever been published in this category, one of which is entitled "Apple Drops Mac OS 9."
      On the other hand, Google is a topic-deserver: there's been five articles in the last month directly pertaining to it. And besides - we all use it, love it, and, as of recently, have made quite a bit of controversy about it.
      Can there be a vote on these things, or at least a call for feedback?

    2. Re:topic's by Coke+in+a+Can · · Score: 1

      You know what I just noticed? There are 2 Medias, one called "Media" and one "The Media". Plus Media (Apple).

      Apple gets a dozen categories, but all MS stuff gets lumped into one. An Evil category would be fun.

      And what about BEANIES?

    3. Re:topic's by Coke+in+a+Can · · Score: 1

      Oh right, I forgot about that, the apple section is like another site altogether.

    4. Re:topic's by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Funny
      the apple section is like another site altogether.

      "The apple section is like another site!"
      (in unison with that other guy.)

    5. Re:topic's by Micah · · Score: 1

      The reason for the GIMP topic....

      Back when Slashdot was first started, the Gimp was a big deal. It was the first end-user Open Source application that truly did something cool. There were many stories about it. So it was certainly logical to have its own topic.

      I do web hosting for Slashcode sites, so I know that you don't generally delete a story. Stories are intended to stay in the database pretty much forever. You certainly wouldn't want to delete a topic that has stories attached to it. While you *can* change which topic is attached to a story, why would you want to?

  4. The Gimps are always getting shafted by robb0995 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean the developers have to park further away now?

  5. This is uber cool! by $$$exy+Gwen+Stefani · · Score: 3, Informative
    Film Gimp (now SinePaint) has been used in tons of major motions pictures, such as the following:

    Scooby-Doo, Harry Potter, Cats & Dogs, Dr. Dolittle 2, Little Nicky, Grinch, Sixth Day, Stuart Little, Planet of the Apes, Showtime, Blue Crush, and The Fast and the Furious II.

    This is really cool. I used to think it was just another Open Source project where someone creates a SourceForge website and then abandons it two months later after no code is written.

    --

    31 people regularly point & click my G-spot
    1. Re:This is uber cool! by Mononoke · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Film Gimp (now SinePaint) has been used in tons of major motions pictures, such as the following:

      Scooby-Doo, Harry Potter, Cats & Dogs, Dr. Dolittle 2, Little Nicky, Grinch, Sixth Day, Stuart Little, Planet of the Apes, Showtime, Blue Crush, and The Fast and the Furious II.

      I'm sure the same could be said about NotePad.

      Impressive though, I suppose.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    2. Re:This is uber cool! by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      It would be even cooler if someone used it for a movie that didn't suck.

  6. Re:Legitimate fork? by Junta · · Score: 2, Informative

    Legitimate as in not violating the licensing terms of the original project. For example, if CinePaint was a closed-source product, it would be an illegitimate fork. Bastard GIMP.....

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  7. Name change is probably a good thing... by pongo000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, how much credibility do you expect from the outside world by giving your project a cutesy name like "GIMP"? Last time I checked, that was a slang term for a cripple, and a not-very-nice slang term at that.

    Maybe "Cinematic Layout Imaging Tool" might have been more in keeping with the spirit of cute acronyms.

    1. Re:Name change is probably a good thing... by Threni · · Score: 1

      "Last time I checked, that was a slang term for a cripple"

      Er....you really should get out more!

    2. Re:Name change is probably a good thing... by wouterke · · Score: 1

      Ah?

      Last time I checked, 'the Gimp' was just a software tool to work on digital photographs. But that's probably because I'm not a native English speaker.

      What does it really mean?

      Besides 'GNU Image Manipulation Program, that is -- I know about that part :-)

    3. Re:Name change is probably a good thing... by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, that was a slang term for a cripple

      it doesn't mean cripple, go rent Pulp Fiction, I think that film pretty much covers what a gimp is.

    4. Re:Name change is probably a good thing... by mbadolato · · Score: 1
      gimp

      n.
      1. A limp or a limping gait.

      2. A person who limps.

      intr.v. gimped, gimping, gimps

      To walk with a limp.

    5. Re:Name change is probably a good thing... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I always thought that was a dumb name too. Then again, most OSS projects have dumb names.

    6. Re:Name change is probably a good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      News flash: some words have multiple meanings.

    7. Re:Name change is probably a good thing... by sean23007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cinematic Layout Imaging Tool? CLIT? Yeah, that would go over very well... Very cute.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    8. Re:Name change is probably a good thing... by Zog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shut up, you gimp.

      (No, I don't really mean that, but it has to be said!)

    9. Re:Name change is probably a good thing... by llamaluvr · · Score: 3, Funny

      The name "GIMP" kind of implies that the program isn't very good, I think. Like the program is limping behind Photoshop...

      I respect the GIMP project, but calling it the "GIMP" is like naming a car the "Ford Lemon" or "Mercury Clunker".

      --
      Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
    10. Re:Name change is probably a good thing... by shepd · · Score: 1

      Or naming a car "Chevy Nova"...

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    11. Re:Name change is probably a good thing... by Stele · · Score: 1

      Yeah but nobody would be able to find the source.

  8. Re:Legitimate fork? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
    Presumably, 'legitimate' means a group has a different vision for a project, and consults with the main developers and they decide to split, rather than some developer getting upset and starting their own copycat project (*cough* MicroBSD* *cough* *OpenBSD*).

    Given teh nature of the BSD and GPL licenses though, the main developers have no more right to the code than anyone else, and aren't in a position to sanctify legitimate or illegitimate forks.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  9. Why fork? by mcgroarty · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I don't doubt there are good reasons for it, but I'm curious no less...

    Why fork?

    Are there features going into CinePaint that aren't valid for GIMP? And the other way around?

    It seems like both projects might benefit by staying more tightly coupled.

    1. Re:Why fork? by ocelotbob · · Score: 5, Informative

      Essentially, the fork came from a different design philosophy and set of priorities. One of the big reasons was that the Film GIMP (now CinePaint) crew wanted support for 16 bit per channel color, something that the GIMP crew wasn't going to be getting around to until GIMP 2.0. While GIMP 1.3.x now has that support, CinePaint now has support for other color models, such as floating point colors. Also, GIMP is migrating to GTK 2.x, and CinePaint is still using 1.2.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    2. Re:Why fork? by nicotinix · · Score: 1

      because spagetti with a spoon just ain't right.

    3. Re:Why fork? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      because spagetti with a spoon just ain't right.

      Um, spaghetti is best eaten with chopsticks. :)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    4. Re:Why fork? by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      This, to me, is actually the strongest point of Open Source projects.

      Bug fixing is not it: I have had many open source (GNU, BSD, etc) that is bug riddled and I have had many closed source that is bug free. I can make arguments that each does best (many eyes - more cought : most motivated - best cought) and each can have examples of good performance and bad performance.

      But one thing, by definition, that a closed source program can never do is fork. If photoshop does nearly everything you need, except say do a widgett. And this widgett is the most important thing to you but useless to anyone else you will never get said widgett (not economically feasable for adobe). With an Open source you can relatively easily fork a widgett project.

      In a well run Open Source project many eyes is very usefull. A lot of people testing is very usefull. But a closed source project can equal that if they choose to spend the money. But a closed source project can never fork in the way an open source project can.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    5. Re:Why fork? by Raphael · · Score: 4, Informative
      Why fork?

      Good question. The initial fork occured a few years ago, when a team of developers started to work on Gimp16 for adding 16-bit color channels into the GIMP. This was needed for editing films, but it was not appropriate at that time to integrate the new code into the core so this became a fork. However, the GIMP developers expected that the main GIMP code and Gimp16 (which was later called Hollywood Gimp, Gimp's Film Version and then FilmGimp) would converge later and that the core of GIMP 2.0 would support most of the features that were required for film editing (mainly 16-bit and floating point color channels). The user interface may have kept some differences due to the specific needs of film editors.

      Unfortunately, for various reasons (political as well as technical), the gap between GIMP and FilmGimp widened a few months ago, soon after Robin Rowe took over the maintenance of FilmGimp and resurected the project that had not been very active in the last two years. There was some discussion about the fork on the GIMP developers mailing list in November and December last year (you can check the list archives here). The conclusion was that the FilmGimp developers were not interested in bringing their code closer to the current GIMP, and there are too few people working on GEGL (the library that should bring 16-bit and float channels into the GIMP) so it will still take a while before the main GIMP code is suitable for film editing. I am still sad about the way this whole thing happened. I tried to bring the two projects closer to each other, but obviously I failed.

      I don't know how the future will look like. I wish the CinePaint developers good luck (honestly) and I hope that they will be successful. This fork of the GIMP suits the specific needs of the film industry and I hope that many studios will be able to use it and do great stuff with it. However, I expect that most people interested in photo editing, web design and general graphic editing will find that the GIMP is more suitable for them than CinePaint.

      By the way, if you want to know some of the plans for the future of the GIMP, I suggest that you have a look at developer.gimp.org. In particular, read the plans for the future of the GIMP, posted in December 2000 but still valid. Besides this, the developers mailing list and the list of enhancements submitted to Bugzilla are good sources of information.

      --
      -Raphaël
  10. Put features in the mainline GIMP! by Speare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Too bad for the GIMP.

    A lot of people had been hoping to see a backporting and/or merge between these two versions. This sounds like the architecture's going to be mainly irreparable.

    Some people would really like to see deep color channels and stronger tools for doing compositing work on movie frames.

    The more that digital cameras offer 12bpc RAW mode, the more the OSS world is lacking until GIMP can handle them well. Color corrections can and should be done with more bits, to avoid losing fine color integrity.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  11. Good Name by Arc04 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I agree with them. CinePaint is definitely a much more professional sounding name than FilmGimp was and also more than the other suggestions.

    If it had a name like FilmStudio, it would sound to me like an amateur effort (My First Film Studio?!?!), which we know it is not and would not have the success it will most certainly have in the future.

    Well I like it anyway :P

    Arc

  12. Good change... The old name kind of sucked by LongJohnStewartMill · · Score: 2, Interesting
    That's a good name change. To be honest, I thought the old one made the software sound kind of wonky. I thought,
    "Hmmm... The Film Gimp. Well, I probably can't use this program unless my monitor is fuzzy or my mouse doesn't have any buttons... Or maybe it has a built-in doodle filter that scribbles all over your work after you save."
    Very confusing... This name change is a Good Thing I think...
  13. Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    ...CinePaint's based in GIMP 1.0, but with support for more data formats, like 16 bit per channel (normal GIMP is 8 per channel). GIMP should have that extra formats in the future (v2.0, by means of GEGL library), but the CinePaint people needed that now, and wanted to improve the original fork. On the other hand, GIMP people wanted to clean the code and port to GTK+2 first, then add new features. So for the moment the targets are a bit divergent.


    If you want more information, search about both projects, read their mailing lists and websites.

  14. Should have called it CineGIMP by alpha17 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why break away from the gimp name if its a fork?

    1. Re:Should have called it CineGIMP by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1

      Because people kept asking GIMP developers/users for help with Film GIMP, which they obviously couldn't provide.

  15. My PC suggestion by baywulf · · Score: 4, Funny

    physically challenged film

  16. Good by shr3k · · Score: 4, Funny

    The project is essentially a legitimate fork of GIMP

    Good, because you know how bad the "support" costs can get when you fork illegitimate chil... errr.... projects.

  17. Re:Legitimate fork? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    an example of a rogue fork is the spork.

  18. Two paths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Current path is due some people wanting to work in old GIMP Hollywood, and even trying to get the code in the main tree. Main coders had a different idea since before the others appeared, clean the tree, then make radical changes, and they kept it.

    Second path, which seems to have been discarded by CinePaint people, is pushing the GEGL library ignoring old code, make small test apps, and then merge with GIMP. A more parellel aproach.

    For GIMP people all is like in the past, no new hands helping, either with current project or with libraries for future one. For CinePaint they get a quick solution, but maybe a dead end. :(

    Oh, well...

  19. $$$exy Girl == $$$exy Gwen Stefani == Fat Guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is everyone on Slashdot a moron?

  20. Re:Legitimate fork? by dvdeug · · Score: 1

    What strikes me here is that if we're now going to call forks legitimate and rogue (or whatever), that implies that there's some authority in charge of authorizing or blessing these forks.

    Not really. It's just a judgement - did this person fork the program for good reasons, or for bad? You may of course disagree with the Slashdot editors or anyone else on this issue.

  21. Re:No thanks by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was sure you posted something higher up implying that you actually had a clue as to what this program was. Obviously not. Film GIMP (sorry CinePaint) is 'a free open source painting and image retouching program designed to be more suitable for film work than GIMP or Adobe Photoshop.' (from the web site). It is a paint program, designed for editing and retouching individual frames in a movie, not a video editing tool. It is aimed at film studios, not at people like you. If you think iMovie would cut it in these situations then you are mistaken.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  22. holy crap... by dcstimm · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was reading this article and I saw the icon for the gimp, you know the weird looking dog creature. Well anyways it freaked me out when I saw its freaking eyes move! I kinda got scared... DAMN MOVING GIF FILES!

    1. Re:holy crap... by jonr · · Score: 1

      And I thought that I was going crazy. I configured Mozillal to run gif animations only once, so I wasn't quite sure about what I saw.

    2. Re:holy crap... by nhaines · · Score: 1

      See? That's what you get! Serves you just right!

      That'll teach you to read the article. :P

  23. Re:please port! by Christianfreak · · Score: 1

    Why?

    Gimp and CinePaint will work just fine with KDE.

  24. Free as in Beer! by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Why not call it 'CinePint'?

  25. Tomorrow's headline by enos · · Score: 4, Funny
    To avoid confusion with the GIMP, the Film Gimp project has renamed itself to CinePaint.

    To avoid confusion with MS Paint, the CinePaint project has renamed itself to Film Gimp.

    --
    boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
    1. Re:Tomorrow's headline by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      its slashdot
      speak your mind
      lose said karma.

      *goes off to use his moderator points now*

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  26. Re:No thanks by JohnG · · Score: 1

    Near as I can tell it's best described as competition for Pinnacle's Commotion.

  27. In other news... by rirugrat · · Score: 1
    In a related story, to avoid confusion with the Windows graphics utility, Microsoft has renamed MS Paint to M$ CinePaint.

    Chris

  28. Re:please port! by liverbugg · · Score: 1

    Who defines what is accepted? I say that gtk is more acceped since the gimp, mozilla, gkrellm, xmms all use it. So mythtv should be ported to gtk since its the only qt program that I use, so gtk is more accepted. I could just as easily say: - C for rapid development - GTK/Gnome for a seriously cool plattform - Better maintainance - More acceptance due to GTK/Gnome

  29. While were at it... by cybercomm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did anyone notice that the icon for gimp is ANIMATED (his eys move) is this me, or is this the FIRST animated gif on slashdot??

    --
    Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
  30. Re:please port! by liverbugg · · Score: 1

    GAH, way for copy/paste to not keep the line breaks

  31. Forks like this can be good by for(;;); · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Cloning a project, forking a project with essetially the same goals but under different management, can be bad. In Linux distributions, for example, we have the same features implemented many different, annoying ways.

    A functional fork, to coin a term, is different. At my company, we have several different version of our client software, all of which does basically the same thing in different contexts. We organize this by placing most common functionality in a shared library, and using different code for each context (email integration, web client, desktop client, et cetera.) The codebases have enough different functionality that different code should be used, with common stuff in its own sandbox.

    This is a good way to go. It encourages the core code to be put into a generic library. Having a GIMP for single images and a GIMP for sequential images will move the developers to code in a way that maximizes reuse. They're not (really) competing with each other, so there's nothing to lose by sharing. And they'll each have their own space to work in, without having a poorly-overloaded interface for both single and sequential images.

    Or, they could not share code, and it could suck. But the incentive is there for sharing, and the architecture of both systems would naturally improve.

    --

    "Whatever happened to fair use?"
    -- Duff-Man
  32. Choices only slightly worse than those offered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Film Qaeda
    Baby Guts
    Visual Anthrax
    PhotoPlacenta

  33. Project history? by whereiswaldo · · Score: 2, Interesting


    In a case such as this where the project name changes, what happens to the CVS module name? Does it change as well? Is everyone required to re-pull the source from a new name? And finally, how is the history preserved?

  34. Re:please port! by tftp · · Score: 1
    One of BIG advantages of Qt is its guaranteed portability. GTK on other platforms is/was dead, or kludgily ported at best. But Qt is reliably working on X, Windows, Mac and now on Qtopia framebuffer as well. This portability is not a rumor (as it was for GTK when I looked), it is a fact, and there is a solid company behind that fact.

    I chose Qt for my work, and I haven't regretted it ever since. It is free for GPLed code, and inexpensive for commercial use - perfect for both worlds - and is well supported.

  35. What portable QT apps are available on Windows? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    I'm not suggesting there aren't any, just that I don't know of any. From the GTK world I have GIMP, Pan and XChat on my Windows laptop. They are certainly in varying stages of completeness, but they all work. In fact don't licencing issues mean that, for GPL Software at least, the "guarunteed portability" you speak of is irrelevant because QT isn't available under GPL on Windows so GPL apps built against QT can't be distributed?

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:What portable QT apps are available on Windows? by tftp · · Score: 1
      I don't know of any.

      Opera, VariCAD and Eagle CAD are some of examples. For more case studies you probably should read TrollTech's Web site, I am not going to do their work for them :-)

      QT isn't available under GPL on Windows

      I just checked, it is available. Not the latest release, though. That might be a concern. You can use an evaluation version on Windows, it is latest, but comes with some strings attached. So GTK looks like a winner in the "freedom" department, and may be a valid option for GPLed software.

      But any professionally developed software (free or for money) will be better off with Qt, because it is not a "port" of something UNIX to Win32 - it uses a whole bunch of Win32 things where they are needed (such as threads, semaphores, networking.)

    2. Re:What portable QT apps are available on Windows? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1
      Opera on Windows certainly doesn't use QT. Interestingly they're using their own widget set now on Windows. I wonder whether that will be the case on Linux soon too (possibly still on top of a QT canvas) in the not too distant future.
      I just checked, it is available.
      Are you sure? The only one I can see is this one and it certainly isn't GPL or GPL compatible.

      In any case I think we agree that QT isn't likely to be an appropriate choice for Free Software if it has any desire to be available on any non X11 platforms. Indeed in some ways it's probably sad to see the "schizoid" licencing terms prevent a little Free QT software hitting Windows desktops.
      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    3. Re:What portable QT apps are available on Windows? by tftp · · Score: 1
      Are you sure? The only one I can see is this one and it certainly isn't GPL or GPL compatible.

      That's what I saw too. It does not have to be GPL, though, as long as you don't plan to hack it, or distribute it - and rarely anybody wants to do any of that. So it is probably OK for a GPL program to use.

      But sure, it would be nice if there was a GPL release of a modern (3.1.2) Qt on all platforms. However, Trolltech obviously needs some cash flow to stay in business (and to make other s/w releases available, free or not). They probably get 90% of their revenue from Win32 platform, and anything that might reduce it would be bad for their business.

  36. But will it have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    a usable UI, unlike its parent? If it does have a sane UI, would somebody please port it to the Gimp?

  37. Re:please port! by someguy456 · · Score: 1

    You DO realize what gtk stands for, right? Gimp Tool Kit.

  38. Flamebait was my first reaction. by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After all GTK stands for GIMP Toolkit.

    It's ludicrous for anyone outside the project to suggest a wholesale change from C/GTK+ to C++/QT. It's the people who work on the project who actually have to work with the code and it makes sense for them to work with what they are most familiar and comfortable with.

    You will certainly not get "Better maintenance" or "rapid development" if you disenfranchise your developers. The "cool platform" and "more acceptance due to QT/KDE" just reek of KDE fanboy garbage.

    If any of these theoretical reasons were practically significant then there'd be no need for a request to port GIMP. People would _want_ to use QT and Krita (or whatever) would be a significant app already.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  39. Cinelerra is Already Pretty Darn Good by GroundBounce · · Score: 1

    My 9th grade son has been using Cinelerra to put together several cinematography projects for school. It does crash occasionally so you want to make sure you save your layouts periodically, and it uses HUGE amounts of memory when loading in video files (it seems to want to store everything in memory), but it has a pretty decent set of features, including multi-layer editing, numerous effects and transitions, and clustered rendering. It may not be as mature as the best commercial packages, but it's already as good as or better than most of the low-end programs that come with most capture devices. He's been using Blender to do 3D titles and credits and stuff like that.

    The combination of Cinelerra + Blender + FilmGimp is pretty decent considering it's all open source. You can do better with commercial software, but not without spending many thousands of dollars.

  40. Re:Good change... The old name kind of sucked by LongJohnStewartMill · · Score: 1

    Oh bs.

    Exactly. I was joking. I see that you posted that as anonymous, so you may never read my reply.

  41. Re:Gimp was always a stupid name. by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gimp is a name subject to ridicule, at least now I can use something that dosen't sound lame.

    Obvious question:

    How do you encode your mp3's?

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  42. Re:About time someone got it by davidowain · · Score: 2, Funny
    Now if only the KDE developers would stop naming everything with a K....

    They Kan't

  43. Re:please port! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
    GTK on other platforms is/was dead, or kludgily ported at best.

    GTK2 has great Windows and DirectFB ports. Nobody has bothered porting it to the Mac because that now has integrated X11. One thing you forgot to mention is that of course Qt is only GPLd on X11 platforms, so if the Gimp used Qt there probably wouldn't be a Windows port at all.

    The idea that the Gimp should use C++/Qt/KDE is ludicrous. There have been talks about making it backend/frontend independant and sticking a KDE front end on it, but in general nobody could be bothered. It'd be a huge amount of work for ..... for what? You can already theme GTK and KDE apps to look the same. The idea that Qt is light-years ahead of GTK is in my experience a complete myth, born more of people who take a quick glance at it and go "eurgh, objects in C", then write it off (as I did at first). Once you actually sit down and start working with the code, you begin to realise that first impressions were misguided

  44. Oh, thanks by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    Here I thought that i was just being really paranoid.

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  45. Apple...... by BiggyP · · Score: 1

    the most important area to these guys. as far as i can tell, is getting it on to OSX and selling it(metaphorically speeking) to Mac users, if they wanted the package to have a future on the linux desktop surely they'd be working on porting to GTK2 and then to OSX from there.

    just out of interest, what can one actually do with filmgimp, sorry, CinePaint? i built it the other day and tried to have a play around, could really work out how to do anything at all, and is it just me or is it strange that they leave script-fu's that don't work with the filmgimp plugin set in the distro?

  46. Re:Good change... The old name kind of sucked by KewlPC · · Score: 1

    the only OS this software supports

    Not true. CinePaint runs on Linux (x86), IRIX (SGI MIPS), and Mac OS X. A Windows port is in the works.

  47. I'm having a Kevin Smith moment. by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

    "I am the master of the clit!" "No one rules the clit like me!"

    -Jay

    --
    ± 29 dB